The investors, the subject of the court decision, faced being lumped in with all other creditors and thus seeing only a fraction of their money returned.

It was successfully argued that those who put their money in just before the investment freeze were entitled to a refund because their money had not been applied by the trustee to the purchase of units within a month after the investment was made.

This may sound a bit technical but according to a barrister and superannuation specialist, Noel Davis, the principle outlined in the court decision is one that trustees of funds should be aware of, as it could be applied in the same way in other cases.

The court decided that the units in the trusts did not get issued to the June 2007 investors until September 28 that year. Consequently, the allocation was outside the month-long window and they were entitled to a refund.

The decision hinges on section 1017E of the Corporations Act, which gives trustees of unit trusts and super funds one month after an investment is made either to allocate amounts invested to acquire units in the trusts or fund, or to refund the money.

So if the trustee is slow off the mark, inefficient, short-staffed or otherwise occupied and the allocation does not happen within the required period, investors who see the market move in a way they don't like or who see the fund they are investing in heading for trouble, stand a good chance of having their investment dollars returned to them.

It might mean they have to go to court to get their investment back but after this decision they are in a position to ask the trustees for a refund first.

In the past, Davis says, trustees of super funds and unit trusts relied upon section 1017E to give them more time than one month if they could prove they needed it and that a month was not a reasonable time to allocate funds into units.

Basis Capital argued that it could rely on that provision to extend the unit allocation time.

The court thought otherwise. It said that if the trustee was allowed an elastic period in which it could extend the time period, the investor protection granted by section 1017E would be diminished.

The court said the section should be interpreted in a way that does not give the trustee the ability to choose what is not practicable of achievement within one month. It found the extended period should apply only where it is impracticable either to issue the units or to refund within a month - for example, where the investor cannot be identified or located in that time.

Davis says the result of this decision will be to let others obtain a full refund in volatile sharemarkets where units have not been used within a month and there will be a loss to the investor when the funds are issued.

That may include other Basis Capital investors. It might be worth their while to look at their documentation to see on which date unit allocation occurred.